There is a must-read article in today's Boston Globe, Bush move on Darfur law criticized, by Charlie Savage. In case you haven't heard of Charlie Savage, he is the Globe journalist that won the Pulitzer Prize for his work on Bush's signing statements. He compiled this reporting into his book, Takeover: The Return of the Imperial Presidency and the Subversion of American Democracy. Yesterday, the House Financial Services Committee held a hearing in which Democrats and Republicans expressed outrage at the Bush Administration for issuing a signing statement on the unanimously passed, Sudan Accountability and Divestment Act. This showdown exemplifies the Bush Administration's pursuit of executive power and insane laissez-faire economics at the price of effective anti-genocide legislation.
On New Year's eve, Bush signed the Sudan Accountability and Divestment Act, which was designed to make it easier for
states, local governments and private investors to cut investment ties with Sudan as a way to pressure the Khartoum government into ending violence in the country’s Darfur region
Specifically...
The legislation targets four economic sectors regarded as crucial sources of revenue for the Sudanese government: oil, power production, mining and military equipment. The law permits states and localities to divest from companies involved in those sectors. It also allows managers of mutual funds and private pension funds to cut ties with companies involved in those sectors and provides protection from lawsuits.
The Bush Administration had initially opposed this legislation by sending letters to to the Senate that they shouldn't pass the bill since it would undermine the president's executive authority in foreign affairs. As Savage notes:
Witnesses at the hearing yesterday said that Bush's signing statement had undercut the purpose of the law, which was to reassure local governments and fund managers that they would not face lawsuits if they divested from foreign companies with ties to Sudan. Under existing sanctions, US-based companies are already barred from doing business with certain Sudanese companies.
Essentially, the Bush Administration is undermining anti-genocide legislation because it undercuts their definition of "executive privilege" and corporate profits.
But Frank and several witnesses - including Patricia Wald, the former chief judge of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia - criticized Bush's legal theories.
They pointed out that the Constitution explicitly gives Congress the power to "regulate commerce with foreign nations," arguing that there was nothing improper about the Sudan act.